Welcome to my blog---an eyes-open, no-holds-barred exploration of Western and Eastern spirituality, mindfulness, philosophy and literature. A member of the Australian and New Zealand Mental Health Association, I lectured at the NSW Institute of Psychiatry to mental health workers for 14 years and at the University of Technology, Sydney to law students for 16 years. My interests include metaphysics, the psychology of religion, transformative ritual, mythology and addiction recovery.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

‘As you ramble through life, brother, whatever be your goal:
keep your eyes upon the donut, and not upon the hole!’ Dr Murray Banks.

Dedicated to Nick S-G, who borrowed my copy ofHow to Live with Yourself … or … What to do Until the Psychiatrist Comessome ten or more years ago ...and never returned it. You can keep it, mate.I've since bought another copy.

Chances are, you haven’t heard of him. Indeed,
well before Dr Banks died without fanfare in 2008 he was for the most part a forgotten man, yet
for over 25 years people all around the world waited in lines for hours around
city blocks to buy tickets to his public lectures on matters psychological. When I
first heard of the man, and purchased a couple of his LP recordings at secondhand
shops back in the early 1970s, he was still riding high. I understand that he
was still ‘working’ cruise ships until at least the mid-1990s, but by then he had largely faded from the public
eye. Still, many of Dr Banks' recordings are available today on iTunes, eBay and
Amazon.com, as well as on YouTube, and secondhand
copies of his books are also available on various sites, including Amazon.com. The titles of his recordings and books say much about
the man himself---titles such as How to Live with Yourself … or … What to do
Until the Psychiatrist Comes, Just In Case You Think You're Normal, The Drama of Sex, Stop the World
I Want to Get Off, Dr Murray Banks Tells How to Quit Smoking in Six Days or Drop Dead in
Seven!, and Anyone Who Goes To
The Psychiatrist - Should Have His Head Examined!

Dr Murray Banks was no slouch or mere purveyor of 'pop psychology,' although he was at least in part the latter. In
his heyday he was one of the most sought-after speakers in America in the 1950s
and 60s. He captivated audiences with his humour and insight into the human
mind, and this is clearly evident if you take even a little time to listen to
his lectures some of which that have been preserved on vinyl and more recently
in digital form. He was best-known for the speech, ‘What to do Until the
Psychiatrist Comes.’ That speech, so I’ve read, turned out to be the second
most heard speech in history. By the mid-1960s Banks had given the speech in
person over 5,000 times in every English speaking country in the world. I live
in Australia, and I am aware that Banks lectured here in 1961, 1965, and 1971,
and possibly in other years as well. In that regard, I have seen a reference on the internet to the effect that he made personal appearances in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia in the mid-1990s. I do know this---his appearances at the Princess Theatre in Melbourne outsold the hit musical of the day, Hello, Dolly! Yes, he left quite an impression
here in Australia on the occasions he was here, and his lectures in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and
South Africa were extremely successful as well. Indeed, it is said that Banks, who was always a most powerful and entertaining presence on stage, spoke in
every English-speaking country in the world. One thing is clear---while he
lived he addressed some of the largest audiences ever gathered to hear one
person’s thoughts on the workings of human mind and on how to stay mentally well.

Dr Banks was also an academic of
some renown. A graduate of New York and Columbia Universities, he did postgraduate work at Rutgers University and post-doctoral research at Harvard, and undertook his clinical psychopathology
study at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. A clinical psychologist, he was for
a time a full professor of psychology at Long Island University as well as at
Pace College, New York City, where he headed the psychology department, and was in charge of psychology courses, for over 5 years. The redoubtable Dr Banks was also for a time a visiting professor of psychology and/or special lecturer
on psychology and other subjects at a number of American higher educational
institutions including San Diego State College, Memphis State University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, the University of North
Carolina, New York University, New York Institute of Technology, Temple
University, New Jersey State Teacher's College, the University of Pittsburgh,
and Brooklyn College. All very impressive. Yet, having said all that, there is
precious little on the internet about the man---not even a Wikipedia profile.
Not much hope for me. I am a forgotten man already.

In what was perhaps his most
well-known and successful recording, How to Live with Yourself … or … What to Do Until the Psychiatrist Comes, Dr
Banks set forth his ‘Ten Sound Principles of Mental Hygiene.’ Here they are:

1. Are you happy?We all want
to be happy but few of us seem to know that happiness cannot be obtained
directly. Happiness is a by‑product
of effective life adjustment. Prolonged unhappiness is a sign of illness---mental
illness. It may even lead to physical illness as well.

2. Do you have zest or enthusiasm for
living?Do you invite
yourself to celebrate life? Can you enjoy the epiphany of the moment?

3. Are you socially adjusted?Being with others and sharing and
otherwise interacting successfully with others is a very important part of a
sound adjustment. A loss of interest in others may be the beginning of apathy
(a lack of feeling) or depression. You reduce your chances of mental illness by
saying ‘YES!’ to life.

4. Do you have unity and balance? Are you relatively ‘together’ in what
you think and do? Reach out to others. Get involved. Get your mind off
yourself. Develop many interests. Try not to wrap your life around any one thing,
no matter how important that is to you. We need many supports and interests in
life.

5. Can you live with each problem
as it arises?Do you worry about things that never happen? We need to learn to
live in the NOW. Now is the only moment that we will ever be sure of. The past
is a cancelled cheque; the future is an IOU.

6. Do you have insight into your
own conduct?Do you know the real, underlying reasons behind what you do? There
is always a reason for any human
behaviour, and the task of a psychiatrist or psychology is to help you help
yourself. For example, a psychiatrist or psychologist helps you understand and
attack your fears and your other maladjustments to life, that is, to challenge
your ‘stinkin’ thinkin’’ (to use an AA turn of phrase).

7. Do you
have a confidential relationship with some other person?Can you talk to, and share your
feelings andthoughts
with, intimate others? Many who have no trusted intimate friends find
themselves in need of ‘renting’ an empathetic ear in the form of a
psychotherapist of some kind.

8. Do you have a sense of the ridiculous?Can
you laugh? Easily? And at yourself? Laughter is the sunshine of the soul. It
can heal illness. A sense of humour gets us through many tough times. You must
learn to laugh! Have you been a good student? When did your stomach muscles
hurt from extended laughing?

9. Are you engaged in satisfying
work?We don't seem to ‘break
down’ (note: Banks would often make the point that ‘nerves do not break down’)
from over‑work as much as we do from over‑stress and over‑worry. How can we turn
a distressful situation into something we can live with?

10. Do you know how to worry effectively? There's only one
thing to do about worry---do something active about the cause of your worry. As
Dr Norman Vincent Peale used to say, we are not born with theworryhabit. We acquire it through
experience. And because we can change any habit and any acquired mental
attitude, we can always do something about worry, including casting it from our
mind.

Banks
would make the obvious point that we all have problems, frustrations, worries,
stressors, fears, anger, guilt, etc. We can learn to adjust by applying the 10 principles
listed above. Sometimes professional help from trained and experienced
psychotherapists is needed.

Banks
would also make the point that we learn so much rubbish at school and college,
but not what we need to know to stay mentally well. I couldn’t agree more. He
would speak a lot about ‘adjustments,’ and how we are all constantly making adjustments
in life as a result of and in response to the daily occurrences and happenings
of life. Many of the adjustments to life we make are unhealthy ones---that’s
why we speak of ‘maladjustments.’ Banks would say, ‘The important thing, ladies
and gentlemen, is---what kind of adjustments do you make when life hands you a
dirty deal?’ The task is simple, but not easy---how do we learn to make
healthy, positive adjustments to life.You know, that word ‘learn’ is so very important. Banks
would make the point that whilst none of us are born insane or even mentally maladjusted,
we still need to learn how to stay mentally well. (That’s right. He says it
doesn’t seem to come naturally, and I agree.) He identified our basic human needs as being these four: the need to live, the need to love and be loved, the need to feel important, and the need to experience variety in
our lives.

All
good stuff. So simple, yet so very profound. People pay hundreds of dollars to
hear that from private consulting psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

Now, do yourself a favour. Listen to or read some of Dr Banks’ material. It’s
not that hard to find on the internet. Spending some time with Dr Banks---bless
you, Dr Banks, wherever you are---will do you no end of good---and you will
laugh at the same time. And laughter, as Reader’s Digest has kept telling us for several decades, is the best medicine. You’d
better believe it.

I leave you with this gem from Dr Banks, which I hope will stay with you for the rest of your life:

‘I hope you'll never forget, never, that
happiness is just like chasing a butterfly. The more you chase it and chase it
and chase it directly, it will always just elude you. But if you sit down
quietly, turn your thoughts to other things, the butterfly comes and softly
sits on your shoulders.’

IMPORTANT NOTICE: See the Terms of Use and Disclaimer. The information provided on this blogspot is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your medical practitioner or other qualified health provider because of something you have read on this blogspot. For immediate advice or support call Lifeline on 13 1 1 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800. For information, advice and referral on mental illness contact the SANE Helpline on 1800 18 SANE (7263) go online via sane.org

Friday, March 28, 2014

Few
illnesses are more serious than cancer, and when the illness affects young
people it is particularly distressing---and also so unfair.

A
recent clinical trial led by researchers at the University of Montreal and its
affiliated CHU Sainte-Justine Children’s Hospital has shown that daily
meditation can lessen some of the main psychological inconveniences ordinarily
experienced by teenagers living with (including suffering or recuperating from)
cancer and thereby help improve their overall mood as well as sleep patterns.

Mindfulness
meditation focuses on the ‘now’---the so-called present moment, being that
‘space’ (for want of a better word) between one such moment and the next---and
the connection between the mind and the body. Persons living with, as well as recovering from, cancer experience not only the physical
symptoms of their condition, as well as the various treatments for the condition, but also the anxiety and uncertainty related to the
possible progression of the disease and the anticipation of physical and
emotional pain related to illness and treatment.

Now, as regards the above mentioned trial, the
researchers asked 13 adolescents with cancer to complete questionnaires
covering mood (positive and negative emotions, anxiety and depression), sleep
patterns, and quality of life. The group was divided into two, with the first
group of 8 adolescents being offered 8 mindfulness-based meditation sessions,
and the remaining 5 adolescents in the control group being put on a wait-list. After
the last meditation session, patients from both groups filled out the same
questionnaires a second time.

The
researchers found that teenagers who participated in the mindfulness group had
lower scores in depression after completing the 8 mindfulness-based meditation
sessions. Interestingly, female participants in the mindfulness group reported
sleeping better than their male counterparts. The researchers also noticed that
the female participants developed mindfulness skills to a greater extent than the
males during the sessions.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: See the Terms of Use and Disclaimer. The information provided on this blogspot is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your medical practitioner or other qualified health provider because of something you have read on this blogspot. For immediate advice or support call Lifeline on 13 1 1 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800. For information, advice and referral on mental illness contact the SANE Helpline on 1800 18 SANE (7263) go online via sane.org

Friday, March 21, 2014

So, you want to be happy, really happy? Then, here's what you need to do. Desire nothing. Desire to possess nothing. Desire to be nothing. Desire to know nothing.

ConventionalChristians, especially
those of anevangelicalbent (how I love that word ‘bent,’ so
apt in the case of those just mentioned), are very wary ofChristian mysticism. Someone once said, 'Mysticism: it begins in
"mist", centres in "I", and ends in schism.' Funny, but not
really true. Real mysticism helps to eliminate that 'I' or self. I’m not at all wary of mysticism, because I draw from a considerable number of diverse spiritual traditions and I'm more interested in what the
various world religions have in common than what divides them as well as people.

Now, the great theme throughout the ages is
unity … oneness. This is so beautifully expressed in the Shema Yisrael
(‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our
God, the Lord is One’ [Dt 6:4]), but the theme of unity and oneness can
be found in all the world’s religions and systems of spirituality. Here’s
another major theme, and important spiritual principle … the need to weed-out
the personal self.

All the world’s religions stress the
importance of purification. (Of course, some take this too far!) We need to progressively weaken
and weed-out all of the structures of the personal self in order to open oneself
to an experience of one’s True Self. This involves the complete subjugation of
our lower nature by the higher. I
love whatWilliam
Templehad to
say about the matter of selfishness. He said,‘For the trouble is that we are self-centred, andno effort of the selfcan remove the self from the centre of its own
endeavour.’ We need to be made free from all forms and notions of
self-identification, self-absorption, self-obsession and self-centredness, but
how is that accomplished. The ‘problem’ identified by Archbishop Temple is very real
indeed.

Saint John of the Cross [pictured above and below] was a major figure of theCounter-Reformation. He was
aCarmelitefriarand priest … and one of the all-time great Christian
mystics. He is also remembered as having been one of the greatest
poets in the Spanish language, his poems being full of rich imagery and
symbolism. There was a Zen-like quality to much of his spiritual writing. Take
this gem, for example:

In order to arrive at pleasure in
everything
Desire to have pleasure in nothing.
In order to arrive at possessing everything,
Desire to possess nothing.
In order to arrive at being everything
Desire to be nothing.
In order to arrive at knowing everything,
Desire to know nothing.
In order to arrive at that wherein thou hast no pleasure,
Thou must go by a way wherein thou hast no pleasure.
In order to arrive at that which thou knowest not
Thou must go by a way thou knowest not.
In order to arrive at that which thou possest not,
Thou must go by a way that thou possesst not.
In order to arrive at that which thou art not,
Thou must go through that which thou art not.
When thy mind dwells upon anything,
Thou art ceasing to cast thyself upon the All.
For in order to pass from the all to the All,
Thou hast to deny thyself wholly in all.
And when thou comest to possess it wholly,
Thou must possess it without desiring anything.
For, if thou wilt have anything in having all,
Thou hast not thy treasure purely in God.

All this is
reminiscent of a number of recorded sayings of Jesus, such as these:

‘For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but
whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.’ (Mk
8:35)

‘But manywho arefirst will be last, and the last
first.’ (Mk 10:31)

‘Blessed
are you who weep now, for you will laugh.’ (Lk 6:21)

The mystic of
whatever persuasion constantly seeks out those areas of their life which are
governed by the little, selfish ‘I’, and place them under the control of the
selfless‘I’, or, if you like, the Self (Christ, God, or
whatever). This is something which
each of us must do for ourselves. Others can but point the way, so to speak,
but we must walk the path. No other person can do that for us. Giving up,
letting go, surrender---they all mean pretty much the same thing---these things
are damn hard. It is like death, which each of us must face and
experience personally. If we would travel far we must travel light, and in
order to gain something greater, we must give up many things that hold us back. All this we know, but, oh, how difficult this is! The ‘old me’ must die daily … indeed, every moment of each day. We must truly want that ‘treasure’ of which Saint
John of the Cross writes … and we must be willing
togo to any lengthto get it. The recovering alcoholic
and addict knows this so very well. You must too.

There is an old Christian hymn written
by Helen H Lemmel that contains these beautiful lines:

Turn
your eyes upon Jesus,Look full in His wonderful face,And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,In the light of His glory and grace.

Now,
Christian or not, there is a ‘wonderful face’ to which we must all turn and
face. For some it is the face of Jesus, for others it is the face of Buddha or
some other holy person. For many who call themselves ‘spiritual but not
religious,’ and others who don’t even feel comfortable with the word
‘spiritual’ (and that’s OK, too), it is the face of their own higher or best
self. Whatever be that ‘face’ for you, turn your eyes upon it, never lose sight
of it, look full into that wonderful face, hold that image firmly in your mind
throughout the day and all the days to come … and the things of earth
will grow strangely dim. They will, indeed.

Friday, March 14, 2014

One of the best books ever written on Buddhism, indeed on meditation and the ‘inner’ life, is Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by the Japanese Sōtō Zenmonk, rōshiand teacher Shunryu Suzuki [pictured above]. We all need to cultivate a ‘beginner’s mind,’ which means seeing all things as if for the first time, for we are indeed seeing all things for the very first time because everything is in a constant state of flux. Even the familiar and the everyday—those things around us that we habitually see---they never remains the same. The Zen mind is a beginner’s mind, seeing each thing in all its directness and immediacy and freshness. Everything is new and wonderful, and you are part of the ongoing unfoldment of life itself from one moment to the next. (In that regard, I am reminded of something the great German mystic Meister Eckhart once said: 'Be willing to be a beginner every single morning.')

There are many schools of Buddhism, but there is this golden thread running through all of Buddhism, namely, that each one of us can be---and in a very real sense already is---Buddha. Now, I am not talking about the historical Buddha as such. I am talking about a person or being, and also a potentiality, that is within each one of us, that is trying to burst its way into full expression in and as each one of us. This is what Shunryu Suzuki has to say about the matter in his book Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind:

'To do something, to live in each moment, means to be the temporal activity of Buddha. To sit in this way [Zazen] is to be Buddha himself, to be as the historical Buddha was. The same thing applies to everything we do. Everything is Buddha’s activity. So whatever you do, or even if you keep from doing something, Buddha is that activity. …'

Elsewhere in his book Suzuki refers to this way of living as ‘being Buddha.’ He writes, ‘Without trying to be Buddha you are Buddha. This is how we attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment is to be always with Buddha.’ He quotes the historical Buddha’s statement, ‘See Buddha nature in various beings, and in every one of us.’ (It is recorded in a number of Buddhist scriptures that the Buddha said that we are all buddhas, a buddha being a person who is enlightened, that is, awake. This is reminiscent of what Jesus himself affirmed, namely, 'Is is not written in your law, I said ye are gods' (Jn 10:34; cf Ps 82:6). Sadly, all too often we fail to see ourselves as we really are---and, no, despite our selfishness and self-centredness, we are not miserable sinners.)

These ideas are by no means unique to Buddhism. You find the same ideas expressed in several other religions including Christianity. The New Testament expression, ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’ (Col 1:27) refers not so much to the historical Jesus but to what some have described as ‘one’s Inmost Self,’ and others the ‘Mystic Christ,’ the ‘Christ within.’ Still others refer to this entity or potentiality as one's 'highest self' or 'true self.'

Whatever words we use---it really does not matter ('the word is not the thing,' as Krishnamurti used to say)---we are talking about a power, potentiality and perfectibility existing and indwelling as our potential perfection but otherwise living largely undeveloped in our human spirit and ever seeking first, progressive unfoldment, and then perfect expression in our daily lives.

Now, all that will sound too airy-fairy, esoteric and mystical for some of you, so let’s try to keep it simple and practical. You are the temporal activity of Buddha (or, if you like, the Christ within) when you see all things as they really are, that is, when you live from moment to moment with a ‘beginner’s mind’ unencumbered by beliefs, opinions, and prejudices. You then experience everything for the very first time with choiceless awareness. You are living mindfully. You are in a constant state of at-one-ment or attunement with all that is. You are alive!

Of course, 'being Buddha,' or Christ for that matter, also necessitates that you be kind, loving and compassionate. That goes without saying. One is never awakened or enlightened in selfish isolation from other people. We are only Buddha, or in touch with the Christ within, when we are in complete attunement with the spirit of love. On the subject of selfishness, I have always liked what another great Sōtō Zen monk, rōshi and teacher Dainin Katagirihad to say: 'To be selfish means we attach to our self as our first concern. It's very difficult to be free of this.' By 'self' Katagiri is referring to one's 'false' or 'lower' self consisting of our likes, dislikes, attachments, aversions, prejudices, beliefs, etc. By the way, Katagiri was for a number of years closely associated with Shunryu Suzuki at the famous San Francisco Zen Center where I myself have attended some talks.

The Zen mind---the quiet, still, but ever-aware and curious mind---is a beginner’s mind. Become a beginner, and live that way from now on. You can do no better.

Friday, March 7, 2014

I have engaged
in some prominent debates with Sydney Anglican (read Episcopalian, if you're American or Scottish) bishops and the like at various
universities over the years on such important topics as the existence of God and whether
Jesus physically rose from the dead. One of the bishops I debated in the Great Hall of the University of Sydney was Dr Glenn Davies [pictured below] who is
now the AnglicanArchbishop of Sydney. At least I found him to be a real gentleman.
He was also no dill, although I didn’t find him to be much of a debater, nor
apparently did a number of his Christian supporters---including some prominent members of
the Sydney University Evangelical Union who organized the debate---who wrote to
me after the debate saying that even they thought I had ‘won’ the debate. Of
course, that neither proves nor disproves anything at all. Important issues of the
kind in question are not truly resolved one way or the other by formal debates
governed by the rules of debate.

I was the ‘atheist’
in these debates. Well, I wasn’t just play-acting for I reject all forms of traditional theism. If
there is a ‘God’ that God is certainly not the crude anthropomorphic ‘being’ in
whom my opponents believed. Atheists do not necessarily reject or deny the existence of
God, rather they simply lack theistic belief (Greekáthe(os)god-less+-ist). Most, if not
all, agnostics, are really ‘soft’ atheists, for they too lack theistic belief and, like atheists, live their lives as if there were no God, which may well be the case in any event. In other words, agnostics, by virtue of their lack or absence of theistic belief, are for all intents and purposes what are known as 'practical atheists,' as opposed to those who are metaphysical or philosophical ('hard') atheists. Forgive me, I digress (as usual).

Now, in the
debates in which I participated I would seek to demolish the traditional,
classical so-called ‘proofs’ for the existence of God. My opponents, knowing full
well that those ‘proofs’ are all fundamentally flawed and have been found wanting by those 'evil, atheistic philosophers,' would invariably seek
to rely upon what is known as presuppositional apologetics. A presupposition
is an assumption that is taken for granted. That is, they would take for granted God’s existence---yes, Christian presuppositionalism presupposes the existence of an absolute God and temporal creation---because their a priori Christian beliefs would not allow them to proceed otherwise. You see the Christian presuppositionalist's 'reasoning' is derived from their basic presuppositions from which they refuse to budge no matter what counter-reasoning is presented by their opponent. They take for granted the truth and reliability of the Christian
Scriptures and assume from the beginning the supernatural revelation of the
Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error. They then try to show
how belief in the Christian God, Jesus, the Bible, the 'miracles', etc, is supposedly more
reasonable than non-belief in those things. Amazing, really. You see, in light of their presuppositions about things metaphysic they see all thinking on such matters---well, at least their thinking---as being wholly receptively reconstructive of their (note this---narrow, emphatic evangelical) interpretation of what is set forth in the Bible as supposedly being God's Word (that is, God's thinking).

My Christian opponents’ arguments
rested almost entirely on an absolutist belief in the Bible as the source of truth because the
Bible is supposedly inspired by God, in whom, so we are told, we can believe
because the Bible affirms it, and the Bible is the source of truth. ('Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.' Well, the Bible must be right, mustn't it? Because the Bible is the Word of God. It says so. So it must be right. Etc, etc.) This sort
of reasoning is entirely circular and tautological, and is little more than
fideism, which asserts---in its strongest form---that belief in the existence
of God cannot be established by reason at all, but must be accepted or rejected
wholly upon faith. In at least one of the debates in which I participated my opponent told the audience that, given my rationalistic worldview, I was simply incapable of entertaining any worldview of a 'supernaturalistic' kind. In other words, he was accusing me of presuppositionalism---of a naturalistic, rationalistic kind. Not so. I do not start with any such presupposition. My present position is simply that the

physical world in which we
live yields no credible or reliable evidence of 'supernaturalism.' This is not a naturalistic bias on my part at all. Not at all. I repeat, I do not start from any naturalistic or rationalistic presuppositions. For example, believing that there are no good reasons for believing that God exists does not
necessitate that God does not and cannot exist since mere belief is notproofthat God either exists or doesn’t
exist. Although I lack theistic belief my mind is not closed to the possibility of God existing, although
I think that’s most unlikely.My mind is not foreclosed to reason, counter-argument or evidence to
the contrary. I fear, however, that my Christian opponents' minds were foreclosed. Their theistic
presuppositions could not under any circumstances allow them to rightly determine God’s non-existence from
evidence. Their basic presuppositions compelled them to always interpret all evidence in a manner consistent with those absolutist presuppositions.

In these debates---as in my various writings---I tried wherever possible to rely on reason and its principal ‘tool’, logic. (I must be honest. I would from time to time also employ some ridicule and theatrics well.) Now, when I use the word ‘logic’ I am referring to traditional Aristotelian logic. My opponents would then retort, ‘God is above the rules of logic.’ Really? That can’t be right. Now, for the sake of what follows, let’s assume that there is a God of the kind my learned clerical opponents claimed made the world, is watching attentively over it, and so on. How could this God be ‘above’---whatever that word means in this context---the rules of logic?First,
the assertion that God is above logic is not an a priori proposition. Where is the theist’s proof for this
assertion? In fact, the theist, although rejecting the applicability of logic,
always ends up applying logic, albeit wrongly. Theists tend to do that, and
they end up tying themselves into knots of their own making.

Secondly,
what is the point of reasoning about God if the principal tool of reason---that
is, logic----is inapplicable or unreliable. Never forget that logic is about things, not thought, and about how things
are related to other things. It is always
a case of … what is. As the Scottish born-Australian philosopher John Anderson [pictured below left] pointed out, there is only one
order or level of reality such that a single
logic applies to all things and how they are related to each other. There can
be nothing ‘above’ or ‘below’ the proposition---not even God. Anderson was a
realist, an empiricist, and in more recent times I have come to see that
idealism and realism are not really in conflict with each other. Indeed, they need each other, and they even complement
each other. Irrespective of whether or not you accept Anderson’s strict realism,
I think what he said about there being only one
order or level of reality is true, even if one embraces monistic idealism.

Thirdly,
and most importantly, if there were anything above logic we simply could not
trust our senses at all. All our attempts at fact-finding, determining what conclusions and inferences can be drawn from any given set of facts before us, and drawing appropriate conclusions and inferences from those facts, would be futile---and we know that is not the case. We can reason---and we must ... if we are to know our true bearings and 'navigate' our way successfully through life. With our eyes open, and wide awake, I mean.

Fourthly,
if God were above logic there could be no interpretation (logical
extrapolation) of God’s Word or Christian apologetics. For example, the various arguments
for the Trinity would collapse. They’re pretty weak in any event, but that’s another
story.

Fifthly,
the theist does in fact use logic when expedient, that is, when it suits their purposes.
Take, for example, the law of non-contradiction (viz that anything with a contradictory
nature cannot exist). The theist affirms that God cannot contradict Himself. Thus,
God cannot create a rock that God can’t lift. God cannot create a round square.
God cannot make the immoral moral. God may be all-powerful but God is still
constrained by logic. If that were not so, then there would be nothing to stop
God from creating a rock so heavy that God could not lift it and then in the
next moment lift it. In short, a God ‘above’ logic doesn’t make sense at all.
It is inconsistent with the very attributes that are said go to make up God
(reason being one of them). Reason and observation tell us that nothing can be
done by anything---including God---that is not otherwise part of its
capabilities.

Finally,
assuming, for the moment that the God of traditional theism
does in fact exist---something which, in my opinion, is highly unlikely
indeed---that God would not be above logic nor below it. As with morality or goodness,
reason would have to be an integral part of the nature of God. It would not be
a question of God ‘submitting’ to logic nor could it be truly said that God
arbitrarily created reason. In short, reason, a fundamental human capability, would
have to be seen to be part of God’s nature and, once again, as the theist keeps
on telling us, God does not and cannot contradict His own nature.

Of course, all that assumes that the God of traditional
theism does in fact exist. I have written and spoken elsewhere on that matter.

COPYRIGHT---TERMS OF USE---DISCLAIMER

COPYRIGHT: There is no intention to infringe copyright in respect of any copyrighted material; if any person believes there is or may be an infringement of their copyrighted material on any page of this website please advise me by email and any offending material will be removed immediately.

TERMS OF USE AND DISCLAIMER: By and in using this blog, which includes but is not limited to all posts as well as all material linked to those posts as well as to any other parts of the blog ("this Site"), the user agrees to the following Terms of Use and Disclaimer:

The purpose of this Site is to give information by way of general comment only, which is not designed to be comprehensive, but which may be of interest to some or all of the public ("the Information"). Ian Ellis-Jones ("IEJ") may amend and also update the material on this Site from time to time but does not guarantee that any of the material is current. The Information does not constitute, and is not intended to be, professional advice, whether of a healthcare kind or otherwise, nor is it intended to be relied upon as a basis for action on the part of any individual in respect of any matter in relation to which there could be loss or damage. Any professional advice of whatever kind sought must be tailored to the user’s specific circumstances. There has been no consideration given as to whether any or all of the Information is appropriate for you. You should not act upon any of the Information without first taking specific advice on your own particular circumstances. IEJ is not, and does not hold himself out as, a medical practitioner. Neither IEJ nor any person or company with whom or with which he is associated makes or gives any representation or warranty of any kind regarding the Information, which is not intended to be a replacement or substitute for professional healthcare or advice of a doctor of medicine or other health care professional. If needed, such advice should be obtained through the services of a competent healthcare or other professional. IEJ as well as all persons and companies with whom and with which he is associated disclaim and do not accept any liability for the decisions you make based on any Information contained on or or linked to this Site or for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from action taken, or not taken, in reliance of or upon any or all of the Information but expressly exclude completely and unequivocally any and all such liability. No guarantee is made or given that the material on this Site is free from computer viruses or other defects. No responsibility is accepted for any viruses that may infect the user's computer or any damages to the user's property on account of the user's use of this Site. Certain links in this Site may connect to other websites maintained by third parties over whom IEJ or any other person or company with whom or with which he is associated has no control. Accordingly, no representations or warranties are made or given as to the accuracy or any other aspect of information contained in other websites. Finally, this blog is the personal work of IEJ and has no affiliation with his law firm, his company Ellis-Jones Enterprises Pty Limited, his colleagues or any other person, company or body with whom or with which he is associated including but not limited to the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry and any and all clients.

European Union (EU) laws require that EU visitors to this site be given information about cookies used on the blog. For more information on Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies on the blog, including Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, please read Google’s privacy practices and how Google uses data on partner sites.

CREATIVE COMMONS

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. Click on CC logo for details.